This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on May 12, 2022. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.


An meeting of the election  commission for the 12th of May,  2022 will come to order. First,  let me say that today is the first day we are having members  of the public in the hearing room,  which is a very exciting development,  so welcome. The first item on our agenda is  an initial determination on eligibility  to receive primary election public  funds. This matter will be held  to the next meeting of the commission,  which brings us to audit division  recommendation concerning the Association of emergency responders  and firefighters pack.  

Is, good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It is the recommender recommendation  on the memorandum  which was submitted for consideration  on March 3rd, 2020 two. Finding one, increased activity  corrected, and finding two, record keeping for disbursements  in use of designated depository, and we  are happy to answer any questions  you may have. Thank you.  

I should state for the public  and for the record that the vice  chair is unavoidably absent today, but will be permitted  to enter votes today and any matters  in which we reach boats. Colleagues, any  motions? 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could  you please elaborate on the need  for finding two? 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finding two highlights the fact  that audit staff was unable to verify  the accuracy of the reports because the supporting documentation provided  by this committee did not elaborate. But we've seen in the committee's  bank statements. 
     >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you  tell me about the receipt of this  committee? How much funds did we  note in this report?  

Yes, thank you. During the  audited years, 2017 and 2018, this  particular committee raised 3 million,  $132,000 and reported, accurately so, no independent expenditure during that period. 
     

Thank you, Commissioner. 
     

Following up on that question,  so, they raised $3 million and did  not spend it on independent expenditures.  Do we know what they did spend it  on? An according to the reports,  the committee's  and the raised funds on operating  expenditures, vendors, communications --  >> Were there communications other  than independent expenditures?  

Yes, ma'am. Fundraising.  

Fundraising. Okay, they raised  $3 million.  He spent money raising the $3 million,  and they did not spend any of it advocating for  candidates or against candidates?  

That is correct.  

That we know of. 
     

That we know of. 
     

Any further questions for the  audit division, or discussion? Are  there any motions? 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With  respect to the audit division  recommendation memorandum on the Association of Emergency Responders  and Firefighters  P.A.C.  
     A 19-21 the approval of  staff recommendations.  

Thank you. In  favor? Opposed? The motion fails  with two coats in favor. Three opposed . Other additional motions? Mr. trainer.  

In audit division  recommendation memorandum on Association  of Emergency Responders and Firefighters  P.A.C. A19-06, I move that the  commission   approve finding one.  

My question  for my colleagues is what is  the nation of your objection to  finding two? 
     

Welcome, Mr. vice chair.  

If I could, Mr. Chairman. So, Commissioner Weintraub, I think  what I heard is that there is no  allegation of anything  done wrong  here, it is just that the information  they have did not  lead to the audit division being  able to draw a conclusion, that  there is really nothing in the record  that shows that there is anything  that needs to be done or that was  not done other than audit was not  able to draw the conclusion they  were looking for.  

Thank you Mr. Chairman,  I agree with what Mr. trainer just  said. I think I would add that the  finding in my opinion does not adequately  explain why the documents  that the committee did provide in response to the DSR  including records and vendor bank  statements sufficiently and verifiably substantiate  the payments. So, in my view, I  have a disagreement with the audit  division about whether the documentation  that they did provide is sufficient  supporting documentation to substantiate  the fact that payments took place. 
     >> Commissioner Weintraub.  

 I'd like to the staff to respond to that please.  >> The audit  uses the committee's bank statements  as the most reputable third-party  independent source, and in this  particular instance, the committee  produced its bank statements that  contain payees  and amounts that we just cannot  trace to the QuickBooks and any other  documentation the committee provided. We eventually asked for very specific documentation  so that we can verify that, but  we could not . Specific payees that appeared  on the committee's bank statements  were not in the committee's supporting  documentation and amounts, so that,  alone, this allows us to verify  the reports  are accurate. There was a  disconnect between the information  we saw in the  bank statements, committees bank  statements, and the supporting documentation. 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could you also explained to us  some of the information that was  provided? We received vendor forms  that show -- I'm a little confused at how this committee was able to provide us, as alleged  proof of their making payment, information  from the vendors themselves. Invoices  or redacted invoices? If you could  explain not?  

Yes, in this instance, the  committee produced  the bank statements of his vendors. They were redacted.  It is unusual to see this type  of documentation, and also , we received a state 
     statements that were produced by  the vendors themselves confirming  the billing amounts and the paid  amounts. However, again, these amounts did  not correspond with the committee's  bank statements. That was our main issue, as hard as  we tried. 
     

Mr. vice chair, there is currently a motion on the floor  to approve audit recommendation  one. The previous motion to  adopt the entirety of the report was rejected. 
     

Thank you for that information. 
     

Of course. 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If none  of my colleagues are persuaded by  audits presentation, I will support the  finding, which is the one finding,  even though I think we should have  a report with both findings in it , and  it is my understanding that under  directive 70, the discussion of  finding two well moved to the 
     issue section of the report, so  it will still be there for the public  to see, it just won't have been  adopted by a majority vote.  

Also my understanding, Commissioner. Any further discussion? All in favor of Commissioner trainers  motion? Motion is carried unanimously.  Are there additional motions? I  see none. Thank you very much to  the staff for the presentation of  your hard work on this audit. Let us move to the third matter  on our agenda , also 19-06. 
     

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and  commissioners. Before you is the recommendation memorandum on the  veterans Association P.A.C..  The ADRN  provides the staff's recommendations  for the following findings outlined  in the draft final audit report  and finding one, statement of financial  activity. Finding two, increased activity.  Finding three, disclosure of occupation  and name of employer. Finding four,  disclosure of disbursements. Finding  five, record keeping for  disbursements and use of designated  depository. Finding six, failure  to file 24-48 hour reports. We are  available to answer your questions,  thank you.  

Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for the audit division?  Commissioner Weintraub . 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank  you, Miss Grant. Could you please  elaborate on the information  underlying  findings four and five? Finding was that the committee was not  using Derek contemporaneous address  on the reports and they amended the reports  to provide their temporary at this  and also they provided their adequate  purposes. We questioned some purposes  that were not adequate, and now  they have been amended to correct the public record and disclose adequate addresses for  several entries. As far  as finding five, record keeping  for disbursements and use of  designated depository, the committee  failed to provide information  explaining why  on the bank statements, there is  one amount , the same amount, 5 million  dollars spent on disbursements in  53 transactions. Yet on the  report, there are 147 transactions,  so the transactions between the  bank statements to U.S. assist were found to not correspond with  the reports of the vendors. 
     

Commissioner Weintraub.  
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going  back to finding four, the simpler  of these two findings, what it be  consistent with all of our prior audits to have a finding in  the situation based on the  timing of when they amended their  reports? 
     

I will be happy to answer that  question. We  believe it would be consistent with  our practices, because all of these  satisfactory amendments were done  in response to the audit, so we  prompted the accurate disclosure . We believe that the  finding belongs in the report. 
     >> 
     Comissioner Weintraub.  

Thank you.  Could you explain a little more  that the assist found  a vendor described on the bank statement?  That is rather unusual.  

Yes. It did not disclose the  vendors names as the ones receiving  the funds. Every one of the statements  would say U.S. vet assist found. Suzanne, did you want to  elaborate any further?  

Yes, that is true. This is  an analogical situation to the previous committee we just discussed. Again,  we are seeing a paid vendor on the  committees bank statements that  does not appear anywhere in the  committee's supporting documentation  or reports. So, we run into the  same disconnect is with the first committee as  far as the name and as far as the  amounts.  >> Do we have any more information  about what this U.S. vet assist  found is, or who is  behind it?  

We inquired, and we were told  that it was payments to the vendors . We acknowledged , however,  sought more documentation so we  can ascertain that the money was  accurately dispersed to the reported  vendors. However,  we did not receive that documentation. 
     

Since we are, theoretically,  the follow the money agency, what  is it possible to follow the money  in this case? An that is precisely  it. We couldn't. 
     

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So again,  I will turn to my colleagues. I  understand that there is some reluctance to approve these two  findings, and I would appreciate  whatever explanation my  colleagues can provide.  

With regard to finding four,  my feeling of what an audit should  be is that the audit division comes  in, identifies problems, and to  the fact that we can have the records  corrected, that the public can properly  know what is happening , and to the extent that we  have a right to know what they are  doing, I think that is what has  happened in finding number four. 
     They had inadequate purposes. They  had an incorrect address. Those  things has been corrected, and therefore,  I don't think that there is a reason  for the commission to be dinged.  More importantly, this information  is still going to continue in the  report even if we don't approve  it, so the public will have an appropriate  notice that those things did not  happen up front, but they have been  corrected. With regard to finding  five, it is the same disagreement  we had on the previous one as to  whether or not the pack itself  needs to prove the negative to the audit division  with what they did. Here, you have 54 different transactions 
     and 147 transactions being reported  to the commission. In my opinion, that is a detailed  report to the commission, and detailed  information that has been given  to the public. There has been compliance  by the  P.A.C.  in this particular case. So, again,  I don't think it is something they  need to be dinged for just because  they can't prove to the satisfaction  of our auditors what is going on. There is nothing to show there  is anything nefarious going on that  needs any further investigation. 
     >> In finding number four, we are  talking about [Indiscernible] 5.3 million dollars  [Indiscernible] I see you leaning forward. Let  me bring this Mike closer. For the  second one, I have some concerns about the conclusion that there is nothing  nefarious, because we have a U.S.  vet assist found, and that is  not the name of the Association  that is before us. Furthermore,  when we were asked  to clarify some of these deposits  and the spending, all they were  able to give us was a quick report and statement, and again,  redacted vendor bank statements.  How this committee is able to obtain the redacted vendor bank statements so they can prove that they actually  paid it is kind of -- I think those audits  should be allowed to dig into that information. It doesn't -- it is  follow the money, essentially.  

Mr. Chairman, if I could. Commissioner, I really don't think  it is our position to go dig into  what the redacted vendors invoices that are  coming in. I think it shows great  cooperation with the audit division for the P.A.C.  to actually go to their vendors  to get invoices, to talk with those vendors  about what they can and can't share  with the commission related to that,  then to redact them and turn it  over. I think that shows an enormous  amount of cooperation with us . We don't have any  jurisdiction over those particular  vendors with regard to the information  that has been redacted. A.B. it  is proprietary. Maybe it  is cost information. I don't know  what it might be that is there,  but there is nothing to show that  there is nefarious activity that  we need to peers that particular veil that I don't think  we have jurisdiction over. 
     

Additional questions for the  audit division or discussion? Motions?  

I have a question. I guess I am curious to know, what we say it is not  nefarious conduct, but it is conduct  that clearly is wrong or incorrect , and it is  of that size, don't we have some obligation within the power of our entity  to look into that, whether we  transfer it to a different part  of the agency or not ? It seems to me we can't just let  it go without learning more about  it. So, I am just going to ask audit to see if they have any suggestions on where we might  go with this.  

Thank you, Mr. vice chair. We, in audit, have obligation to  refrain from speculating. We can't  speculate. We only provide the commission  with the facts. We are telling the commission, with this particular  finding, that the committees, both  of them, did not have their own  bank statements to support what they are reporting. What we  are saying is we don't have the  records to verify that the public  record is accurate. That is all  we are saying. We are asking  the committee  to provide more records, to provide  records to substantiate the reports. That is  audits standpoint.  

Does audit  have the ability to subpoena the  documents or subpoena the documents  that relate to them, so you have  some sort of rep use it  representation?  >> That would be a question for our  colleagues in the office of General  Counsel, Mr. vice chair.  

Okay, if we were to look into  that, we  would ask the similar part of  the agency. Whenever you see potential wrongdoing, is that pretty much  what you send -- how far do you  go when you see transactions that  raise serious questions, but you  can reach them  with accuracy? 
     

With this particular finding , we were hoping for approval  of the record-keeping issue, and  potential referral to the  office of General Counsel for their  action, depending. But, from our standpoint, we can  only hope for approval of this finding. That is as far as we can  take it.  

I apologize.  Go ahead. 
     

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I  was just going to follow-up on what  Miss 
     Pacious was saying  to Mr. vice  chair .  We don't have all the information  that we need. Essentially, what  we do is work within the parameters  of the information that is before  us. In this particular case, that  resulted in our recommendation for  a record-keeping finding, given  that we were not able to match amounts and  payees from the committees documentation  to what was disclosed on the report. So, and this particular instance,  it presented itself in a record-keeping  finding. There are instances when  we don't have records that we will  pursue subpoena requests to force commission  approval. However, in this case,  what  we have before us is a record-keeping  finding.  

In a case like that, but you  still make a recommendation to send  the matter to OGC? 
     

As far as recommendation, Mr.  vice chair, we are consistent with  our previous recommendation for  this type of finding. We keep encouraging the committees  to provide the records, and we are pretty much consistently  recommending the same thing for this committee, as well.  

Thank you very much.  

Thank you. 
     

This is a question for audit. The request for bank statements,  is this an unusual request?  

Thank you, Commissioner. 
     Audit has not requested bank statements,  per se, other than the committees  bank statements. When we are lacking the documentation  to verify the reports, we asked  the committees for anything they  have to produce. Offender statements,  vendor bank statements are rarely  seen, as in these two cases. 
     >> Do you recall the specifics of  these vendor statements? What type  of services were provided? 
     

I'm sorry, I'm having some audio  issues.  

I think it's me, so. Do you recall , on those vendor statements that  we received, were  there any common actors in between  the statements? Was it all fundraising?  Was it all consulting? Did the names  match in any way? Was there anything  similar about those?  

These two committees  share the same treasurer  and officers . While the majority of the information  on the vendor bank statements was  redacted, we did see money flowing  between the committees and some  other committees related. There appeared to be similarities in  vendor addresses . 
     The very appearance of the vendors  invoices that the committee produced  was the same. With a very short description of  the services, which again, is highly  unusual in our audit role, because  vendors usually do not  share locations, banks, and things  like that. However, we did review the documentation  provided. We concluded that we do not have  sufficient information  to tell the commission that the  public record is accurate. 
     

Comments? Motions? Comissioner Weintraub  .  

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With  respect to the audit division recommendation  memorandum on the US Veterans Assistance  Foundation   P.A.C. A19-06,  I move approval of all the recommended  findings. All in favor? Opposed? 
     No. Motion fails with three in favor and three opposed. Further motions? Mr. Trainer?   >> In  US Veterans Assistance Foundation  P.A.C. A19-06 I suggest  the commission remove findings . 
     

Again, my understanding is that this would  remove sections four and five . Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The motion is carried unanimously. Anything further? Mr. acting staff director, are  there any administrative matters? 
     

There are no such matters.  

We are adjourned. [ Event concluded ]